|
b. 103
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The lack of staccato dots is an oversight by the engraver of GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 105-132
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
B. 105-136 are absent in AI – b. 104 is followed by the original version of b. 137-140 and continuation of the Mazurka. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Changed phrase length |
|||||||||||
|
b. 108
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
Just like in b. 16, the missing arpeggio mark in the autographs and in FE (→EE) is probably an inaccuracy of notation. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 109
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The accent in AF is quite short in this bar, hence it is its shape and context that make us consider it a long accent. The presence of a significantly longer mark in FE (→EE) – such as in analogous b. 17 – points to a possible intervention of a reviser or perhaps Chopin himself. A change performed on Chopin's order would confirm the mark to be a long accent. The mark in GE1 was placed inaccurately, so it is not entirely certain which beat of the bar it concerns. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 109
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we include the wedge written in AF. The mark is very long and distinct, hence it is difficult to overlook it. Its absence in FE (→EE) may result from a misunderstanding – the engraver could have interpreted it as a crossed-out dot. See also b. 115. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Wedges |
in 
